Proposed smoking ban controversial

Proposed smoking ban controversial

There are 17 comments on the WLFI Lafayette story from Mar 25, 2009, titled Proposed smoking ban controversial. In it, WLFI Lafayette reports that:

The Indiana House of Representatives passed a smoking ban weeks ago, but, it allowed several exemptions.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WLFI Lafayette.

“Non smoking freedom loving vet”

Since: Apr 08

Chicago

#1 Mar 26, 2009
Illinois is a good place to "study". As can be clearly seen by those of us living near the state line over the last year, Illinois smokers have been giving the casinos, bars, and restaurants in surrounding states their full support and blessing with their feet and their money. Had the antis done the same as Illinois smokers have done by supporting the non smoking Illinois casinos, restaurants, and bars instead of ranting and raving, people might pay attention to them. As it stands, claims about bans not hurting businesses are falling on a lot of deaf ears. They need to put their money where their mouth is.
are you kidding

Indianapolis, IN

#2 Mar 26, 2009
The Indiana house of Legislators will be responisilble for second hand smoking, and some of them smoke they don,t want to get caught! Maybe they can lower the gas prices even more and Give every none smoker a Million dollars!
Ken Hill

Niagara Falls, Canada

#3 Mar 27, 2009
Government Will Make Smokers, Children, Families, Sick

Government's that foster anti-smoking policies lead the real health epidemic, government interference. They are not using science as their competent guide into the future. Instead they use the deep festering envy of politicized environmentalists (those unable to compete on a level playing field) to revisit remnants of the dark ages. The profound statement of philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand echoes the truth that smothers us, "Today, we live in the age of envy."

I am a life-long non-smoker, who has lost the four most precious people in my life. Cancer was the effect, a consequence, but not the cause. Yet, I will not help to propagandize health into dictatorial policy through anti-smoking. I do not wish to repeat the 1930's, 1940's. Do you?

Exactly how can our government "create a healthier society for all" when they betray the smoker's sense of trust, demoralize their self-confidence, disrupt their employer-employee relationships, upheave their family life, and undermind their efficacy by alienating them from their own human nature?

This destructive mind/body dichotomy will subject smoker's to long-term emotional and mental disorders, thus leading to serious physical ailments. In reality, our government is making them sick.

A particularily foreboding feature of the mind/body dichotomy is the government's suffocating negative influence while aggressively restricting young people from making their own decisions. Government aggression will severely jeopardize each young person's struggle to form a necessary sense of self-confidence. This fragile process is usually a traumatic experience, especially when that negative influence is hidden under the misconception of government benevolence.

In reality, our government lacks the knowledge of the trigger mechanism that sets off most cancers or most other major diseases to then become a critical danger for human beings. It is not smoking, nor second-hand smoke. Then why does government pathetically use smoker's as their scapegoat, perhaps they require an example in order to intimidate other industries?

Chicken Littleism is no longer a silly joke. It is now a snarling threat. Stamp out politicized environmentalism, not smokers.

“Fredneck County Md”

Since: Feb 08

Small Town

#4 Mar 27, 2009
Ken Hill wrote:
Government Will Make Smokers, Children, Families, Sick
Government's that foster anti-smoking policies lead the real health epidemic, government interference. They are not using science as their competent guide into the future. Instead they use the deep festering envy of politicized environmentalists (those unable to compete on a level playing field) to revisit remnants of the dark ages. The profound statement of philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand echoes the truth that smothers us, "Today, we live in the age of envy."
I am a life-long non-smoker, who has lost the four most precious people in my life. Cancer was the effect, a consequence, but not the cause. Yet, I will not help to propagandize health into dictatorial policy through anti-smoking. I do not wish to repeat the 1930's, 1940's. Do you?
Exactly how can our government "create a healthier society for all" when they betray the smoker's sense of trust, demoralize their self-confidence, disrupt their employer-employee relationships, upheave their family life, and undermind their efficacy by alienating them from their own human nature?
This destructive mind/body dichotomy will subject smoker's to long-term emotional and mental disorders, thus leading to serious physical ailments. In reality, our government is making them sick.
A particularily foreboding feature of the mind/body dichotomy is the government's suffocating negative influence while aggressively restricting young people from making their own decisions. Government aggression will severely jeopardize each young person's struggle to form a necessary sense of self-confidence. This fragile process is usually a traumatic experience, especially when that negative influence is hidden under the misconception of government benevolence.
In reality, our government lacks the knowledge of the trigger mechanism that sets off most cancers or most other major diseases to then become a critical danger for human beings. It is not smoking, nor second-hand smoke. Then why does government pathetically use smoker's as their scapegoat, perhaps they require an example in order to intimidate other industries?
Chicken Littleism is no longer a silly joke. It is now a snarling threat. Stamp out politicized environmentalism, not smokers.
Thank you Ken, that was one of the best posts I've seen on Topix in awhile.
GFY

Lebanon, IN

#5 Mar 27, 2009
Happy Contented Soul wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you Ken, that was one of the best posts I've seen on Topix in awhile.
I have to agree 100% and you people that voted in these dems just wait because eventually, after you get your heads straight, the conservatives will be back in office. It will happen and trust me you will see "change." This country is a huge cluster f right now do you want more? Pelosi is a cuke and you can go on and on. Oh these people want more of your freedom, they wanna know the room temperature of your house and how many miles you drive and tell you where and when you can or can't smoke and if you need healthcare. What the hell happened?
are you kidding

Indianapolis, IN

#6 Mar 27, 2009
Ok Dan O Bookem smoking violations
Watchdog

Indianapolis, IN

#7 Mar 27, 2009
To ban "smoking" is to penalize the victims and to utterly ignore cigarette makers, ingredient suppliers, and complicit public officials who have together created easily the most industrially-contaminated consumer product of all time.

Smokers think, and are still told, that cigarette are just tobacco. It is not smokers who've adulterated the products with any of 450 tobacco pesticide residues, with radiation from phosphate tobacco fertilizers, with any of about 1400 untested often toxic non-tobacco additives, with fire causing substances, with addiction-enhancing additives, and with kid-attracting sweets etc galore.

Yet it is these Guinea-Pigged smokers who are demonized, exiled, and penalized. Whether one cares for smoke or not...this is a huge injustice.

“Non smoking freedom loving vet”

Since: Apr 08

Chicago

#8 Mar 27, 2009
Any tax exempt "charity " that has become a political action committee that, instead of doing research and educating, their primary function, now spends huge sums of money to hire lobbyists to make laws using GESTAPO tactics using LAW ENFORCEMENT, THREATS, INTIMIDITATION,, and SNITCHING to FORCE people to OBEY their guidelines with draconian smoking bans will get NO DONATIONS from me, Since becoming a political action committee, they need to have their tax exempt status investigated by the IRS. Contributions to PACs are NOT tax deductable. All my donations are going to local events and groups that depend on local businesses and bingo halls, that the bans are affecting, for their support, Here are the groups taking that money away from them, all fed by big pharma through their Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf
are you kidding

Indianapolis, IN

#9 Mar 27, 2009
Who the hell cares the idiot smoker cry babies want their way. I have too smoke their crap. but there have been many who have blown it in my face and KISSED the pavement!an didn,t get up!to soon.
GFY

Lebanon, IN

#10 Mar 27, 2009
IT'S GOT MORE TO DO THEN WITH SMOKING!!! Where does government involvement end? Why do I need the government to tell me what's best for me?

“Fredneck County Md”

Since: Feb 08

Small Town

#11 Mar 27, 2009
Typical anti-smoker kissing the pavement... http://tinyurl.com/dlqrod
Watchdog

Indianapolis, IN

#12 Mar 27, 2009
It's sad and unfortunate that the cigarette cartel (including the ingredients suppliers, tobacco pesticides, chlorine, radioactive (!) fertilizer suppliers, etc, and all their insurers and investors) have succeeded in pitting smokers against anti-smokers...friend against friend, neighbor against neighbor, family member against family member.
Thing is...BOTH "sides" are victims of that industry's incredible lies ("tobacco kills 400000 a year" , etc.) and incredibly deadly chemicals....whether or not those chemicals are in contaminated cigarettes or not.
You get hit with some toxic/carcinogenic on the job or even in the home....and, IF you happen to smoke, guess what will be blamed? No...not the industrial chems. You will not even be CHECKED for exposures to those chemicals!
The smoking vs non-smoking battle is a Set- Up...a global-level scam...a distraction from big-time corporate crime. Hell, guess who's the prime funding and promotion powers behind "anti smoking". It's none other than CHLORINE industries... pharmaceuticals and pesticides (and their insurers/investors)...the same industries that put pesticide residues AND pharmaceutical substances in typical cigs...and whose precious chlorine is responsible for cancer-causing, fetal-damaging, pregnancy-disrupting, immune-suppressing DIOXIN in the smoke from those concoctions. Tobacco plants are utterly incapable of such diseases...yet tobacco, conveniently "sinful", is taking the rap...along with those who've been deceived into thinking a typical cig is just tobacco. Right. And a newspaper is a Pine Tree...because the paper comes from tree pulp.
Google up the term "Fauxbacco" and check out some other things yr local officials, and papers, didn't get around to mentioning yet. Watch them squirm when those topics are raised in some public forums.
By the way...when was the last time, if ever, that the corporate media and big biz got so "concerned" for our health, and "clean air", and workers' health? They sound like virtual Socialist Environmentalists. Or is it that they are just USING the rhetoric when it's convenient?
Watchdog

Indianapolis, IN

#13 Mar 27, 2009
No "CSI" on the Corporate Crime Beat---

Regarding the line in previous posting about one not even being checked for corporate chemicals that may have cause their illness...or death... There is pretty much No Such Thing as "CSI" in the area of corporate crime.
The "detectives", health offiials and corporate-funded universities etc, generally working for the corporate establishment, want to keep their jobs and financial grants. Just Obeying Orders, apparently. They do as best as possible to blame the victims...and to ignore corporate/industrial instruments of crime...such as dioxins and rads and fire-starting additives etc in typical cigarettes.

Nancy flipping Drew would know enough to examine the cigarette said to have killed someone...just in case it was contaminated with killer substances. Not our crack "anti-smoking" detectives.
Kathy Walker

United States

#14 Mar 30, 2009
I recently visited a number of states out east that have comprehensive smokefree air laws. It was refreshing. I wish I could have returned to Indiana and continue to enjoy the air free for secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants.
Sunny

Mims, FL

#15 Mar 30, 2009
Kathy Walker wrote:
I recently visited a number of states out east that have comprehensive smokefree air laws. It was refreshing. I wish I could have returned to Indiana and continue to enjoy the air free for secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants.
I've lived in smoke-free cities for over 8 years -- first in Lubbock, TX and now in the Orlando area (all of Florida is smoke-free with a very few exceptions)-- and it's wonderful.

The trend is strongly pro-ban, so it's only a matter of time before you get one in Indiana.

Many large organizations may avoid (or already have avoided) having conventions in your state because of the lack of a ban -- so that might get your legislature on the ball.
Judy Mays

Indianapolis, IN

#16 Mar 30, 2009
Ever had to take an antibiotic? The doctor always tells you to take the full prescription, even if you begin to feel better. Indiana legislators are just trying to feel better but the truth is in order for all workers to be protected - it is all or nothing. Some things just can't be compromised. Our country wouldn't be in the condition that it is if we acknowledged what is right and best and do it!
Watchdog

Indianapolis, IN

#17 Mar 30, 2009
Many people back in the 40's were happy that hemp/cannabis/marijuana was prohibited. It saved them from "reefer madness" and assaults by weed-crazed blacks (reefer users) and Mexicans (marijuana users)....or so they thought due to the racist way the media sold the Prohibition campaign.

The horrors caused by that prohibition are still with us today, with a vengeance. Our prisons are way past overflowing, our farms are soaked in pesticides (not needed for hemp), and our forests fall to provide paper that could otherwise be grown in productive, non-toxic hemp farms. Who pushed for that Prohibition?...the chlorine, plastics, pesticides, pharm industries and some others that did not care to face competition (or comparison) with such a benign, useful plant.

And now we are facing Reefer Madness II, against another public-domain natural smokable plant. Who's pushing it? Not environmentalists or ant-corporate health advocates etc...but the SAME industries...chlorine, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals etc...which do not want to compete with tobacco/nicotine for many drug uses, and do not want to pay penalties for what they've DONE to tobacco (and millions of smokers) with all their pesticides, chlorine (and dioxin), fertilizers, burn accelerants, and so forth.

To cheer for "smoke-free air" is to also, unwittingly, cheer for those industries' success in blaming the unprotected, uninformed victims...and success in blaming a natural plant, one that can't possible cause many or most of the diseases said to caused by it.

If anyone thinks that the corporate establishment has finally become "environmentally concerned", or has suddenly found compassion for workers...well...that's testimony to the power of corporate media in selling even the biggest, most absurd lies.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Smoking Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Man Smoking Near Gas Pump Bursts Into Flames (Mar '07) 2 hr visitor 29
News California raises smoking age to 21, tightens v... (May '16) Jan 17 Mugs mahone 9
News The spy who quit? Lovers keep 007 passive smoki... Jan 17 Get a LIFE 2
How to get addicted to cigarettes? (Jun '11) Jan 16 Smoker 26
A smokers ONLY dating site .... it's about tim... (May '06) Jan 10 Shannon 17
News Pot smokers to defy Trump, light up at his inau... Jan 6 Huh 1
Poll Do you want your kids to smoke? (Oct '07) Jan 6 Shannon 123
More from around the web